Quantcast

Conservatives win elections

Armstrong Williams | 3/29/2012, 1:36 p.m.

Democrats are, and have always been, getting their way on taxing and spending. If you need proof of that, recall that government spending went up in 2011 despite the debt ceiling showdown over the summer and at least three separate potential government shutdowns.

In fact, that is the reason--not obstinacy, not partisanship, not racism--that House Republicans and current Republican presidential candidates cite for their hesitancy to compromise.

We have fallen for "compromises" before. Reagan and the Democrats had several "grand bargains," and, to no one's surprise, Reagan never got the spending cuts he was promised. A quarter of a century later, Democrats on the super committee wanted trillions in new taxes and called this a compromise. The taxes are always immediate; the spending cuts always come after the election, and then are repealed by the next Congress before they can even happen.

Americans have every right to be frustrated. In 2011, their government had a $1.5 trillion deficit and $15 trillion in debt, and it nearly shut down over a couple billion that-- surprise!--the Democrats wouldn't cut. We have huge problems that we are simply not facing. Who really is obstructionist? If you can't tell, look at the country. Does it more closely resemble the conservative ideal of small government, equal treatment for all and low taxation? Or is the tax code 9 million words, the U.S. Code 200,000 pages and the budget full of social programs and market distortions? Whose vision is closer to what we already have?

Remember that old liberal talking point that Europe is so much better, years ahead of America? I'd like to see them use that one now. If Europe is more progressive, closer to some theretofore unrealized ideal, then it is not the ideal for us. But we are closer to European socialism than we have ever been, and it didn't start on Obama's watch. It's been going on for decades. The problem with Obama is not that he invented the problems, but that he refuses to even acknowledge that they are his to solve, as though he were leading some other imaginary country where inequality of outcome is the only issue.

In 2012, we have yet another election year that is primarily a reaction against the establishment, and the country has swung back and forth yet again, unhappy with both parties. But why?

The problem with George W. Bush was not that he was conservative, but that he was not conservative enough--he hurt the credibility of the GOP by bloating the government further--and not just the military and the Department of Homeland Security--but, in his "compassionate" conservatism, blowing money on domestic spending as well.

If the Republicans stick to constitutional and classical liberal principles, they win elections. They got drunk with power after Gingrich took over in 1994 and then didn't deliver on their promises. Since then, they have collectively failed to practice what they preach. The worst of their transgressions was the Medicare Part D entitlement that Speaker John Boehner and Bush added, which was worth around $13 trillion in unfunded dollars, hoping to bribe their way to a permanent majority. This is what we complain about the liberals doing.